Case 2500912/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mr A Wade v AG Wade Limited — 2023

Case reference: 2500912/2022
Decision date: 31 May 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Murphy Representation
Venue: Newcastle

Indexed: 17 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr A Wade

Respondent

AG Wade Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a public preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Murphy at Newcastle on 30 and 31 May 2023, convened to determine the claimant's employment status during the period from 12 August 2021 (when he and his family ceased to be majority shareholders of the respondent following a share purchase by Apple of My Eye Limited) to 5 April 2022 (when his relationship with the respondent ended). The claimant, an optometrist aged 68 at the relevant time, had previously been lead optometrist and managing director under a written contract of employment; after the share sale he continued to provide services under a document characterised as a Consultancy Agreement, which described him as an 'independent contractor' and 'self-employed person'.

Applying the established status tests, the Tribunal examined the irreducible minimum of personal service, mutuality of obligation and control, together with the wider factual matrix. The judge found that personal service was required, mutuality of obligation was present (the respondent provided work via clinical diaries and the claimant was paid £250 per session or 17.5% of clinic revenue), and the claimant was subject to instructions from management and integral to the respondent's Durham operation. Factors pointing away from employment — the label of 'consultancy', the absence of PAYE, payment through Wade Optometry Limited, lack of paid holiday or sick pay, no employer pension contributions, use of some of his own handheld tools and his own indemnity insurance — were considered but found not to be sufficiently weighty to displace the employment relationship.

Standing back from the detailed picture as required by Hall v Lorimer, the Tribunal concluded that the claimant was an employee of the respondent within s.230(1) ERA 1996 and s.83 Equality Act 2010, and consequently also a worker within s.230(3) ERA 1996. Clause 9 of the Consultancy Agreement labelling the relationship as 'independent contractor' did not affect that legal conclusion. The substantive complaints of unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal, breach of contract (notice), unauthorised deductions, whistleblowing detriment and age discrimination were not determined at this preliminary hearing.

Claims and outcomes

5 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Not adjudicated on the merits at this hearing. This was a public preliminary hearing limited to determining the claimant's employment/worker status for the period 12 August 2021 to 5 April 2022. The Tribunal found the claimant was an employee under s.230(1) ERA 1996 and s.83 EA 2010, which permits the unfair dismissal claim to proceed; the substantive unfair dismissal complaint itself was not determined.	Other	—	—
Breach of contract	Not adjudicated on the merits. The preliminary hearing established employee status (a precondition for the notice/breach of contract claim) but did not determine the substantive breach of contract (notice) complaint.	Other	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	Not adjudicated on the merits. The Tribunal found the claimant was a worker within the meaning of s.230(3) ERA 1996, satisfying the status precondition for a Part II ERA wages claim; the substantive deductions complaint was not determined at this hearing.	Other	—	—
Whistleblowing	Not adjudicated on the merits. Worker status was established (a precondition for Part V ERA detriment protection); the substantive protected disclosure detriment complaint was not determined at this hearing.	Other	—	—
Age discrimination	Not adjudicated on the merits. The Tribunal found the claimant was an employee within s.83 Equality Act 2010 (a precondition for the EA claim); the substantive age discrimination complaint was not determined at this hearing.	Other

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.

Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

How we got this data

Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.

Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.